Title: Homo Toxicus Director: Carol Poliquin Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses primarily on the rampant chemical use within the agricultural and industrial industries of the world. We are gradually contaminating the planet with unnatural substances and in doing so ourselves as well. No one knows when this action will reach a breaking point but some effects can already be noticed. It is quite difficult to remove these chemicals from the environment and our bodies and little preemptive action is currently considered.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
One of the sustainability problems presented in this film is related to the science of the effects of these chemicals due to its complexity and the need for time consuming accumulation studies. The effects of these chemicals can only be linked over a large population through visual trends. The first mutation of a cell eventually causing cancer can often occur 25 years beforehand. The science can also become an economic and political problem because of vested interests in those performing the science. For example in the documentary the industry of atrazine (a type of fertilizer) has such an effect on the economy and politics of the United States’ agricultural industry that it is unlikely to see regulations anytime soon despite numerous environmental implications it may have. Our society is not overly concerned with establishing the health effects of these chemicals. Funding that correlates to tests that don’t have economic potential is not of the highest concern for politicians or industrial corporations. There is an economic need within these industries to constantly maximize production. This would be severely limited by the need for precautionary actions or increased health regulations. 85,000 industrial substances are approved by the EPA for use in industry and only a couple hundred of them have had any form of health studies performed on them.
This lack of science leads to another organizational sustainability problem within the healthcare industry. Environmental factors are not typically considered as a factor in diagnosing chronic diseases due to the lack of knowledge and diagnosing tools for them. Most people can only suspect if a toxic substance they may have been exposed has caused an illness. If when people were diagnosed they knew it was caused by a certain chemical then they would most likely be more impassioned to prevent it from harming others. People also tend to have faith in the organization or culture in which they live. There is a strong faith in government regulation of the market.
One of the primary sustainability problems of the widespread use of these chemicals is ecological and human health concerns. PCB has shown to slow reaction times of nervous systems from sensory to response and mercury exposure can cause them to speed up often too fast to be properly processed. PPDE exposed rats tested at similar levels to what humans are generally exposed too showed hyperactivity with adverse effects to their adrenal and thyroid glands. BPA (biphenol-a) has been linked to cancer in rats at levels far lower than the EPA’s 50 ppb tolerance. Also a significant decrease in sperm count (motility and shape deformations) was shown to be correlated to the year in which you were born with more recently born people showing greater symptoms and a significant percentage of the toxins have been developed in more recent years. Everyone agrees that high exposure levels affect people but most don’t realize how even minimal contamination can still alter the way our genes behave, effecting precise protein production, effecting our endocrine and reproductive system and the delicate balance of “cell signaling” present within our bodies.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very compelled by the little amount of toxic chemicals that it took to cause some life threatening changes to our human bodies. The film mentioned that 1/1,000,000 or even as low as 1/1,000,000,000 of our body is composed of toxic chemicals but we are quickly realizing even this microscopic amount can affect us. Our body simply doesn’t know how to respond to the nature of these inorganic chemicals. Over 110 chemicals at various concentrations were found in the producer’s blood, all of which are not naturally occurring in our environments. The fact that we caused these chemicals to be contained within us is very persuasive to me. Numerous endocrine disruptors unnaturally placed into our environment were even thought to be causing shifts in birth ratios in industrialized nations. I was primarily compelled by the realization that our actions can often change more than we could ever expect.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not very compelled by the portion of the documentary about Hypospadias which is a penis malformation. This malformation occurs in people with normal hormones and normal genes but some x-factor possibly something like pesticides causes testosterone blocking causing the victim to develop a malformed penis beginning to take the shape of a women’s private parts. I found the images to be quite striking and disturbing but the causes were not directly linked to pesticides and I believe the cases of this were somewhat limited. It seemed like the producers desired to scare you into believing that your son’s penis will be malformed if you use pesticides but this still seemed highly unlikely.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Although I undoubtedly will not do so, this film compels me to figure out what concentrations of chemicals I could find within my own bloodstream. I would also be interested in knowing more about the hormone and antibiotic residues in meat as these things cause me to question my daily eating habits. Is there a proven health correlation between eating organic free range type beef without these hormones as compared to standard products? This is something I would be willing to change within my daily habits especially if it would reduce the amount of toxins and unnatural substances within my body.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think anyone of an age to understand the concepts presented within the film would be a good audience to address. The primary purpose of the film in my opinion was to show how these toxic chemicals are everywhere within our daily lives and even though the impact isn’t obvious hundreds of chemicals are circulating in every one of our blood streams. Although no concrete evidence was presented that shows these trace levels will give you cancer directly I feel like the film is thought provoking and will likely change the way people think about unnatural chemicals. I think this film would be especially beneficial though for uninformed industrial workers who might be exposing themselves to very dangerous levels of some of these chemicals without knowledge from their employers about the danger that they can cause.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
One point of intervention that was mentioned within the film is with our current policy in much of the world of risk management vs. precautionary action. We regulate our society giving weights to cost and economy as well as health. Often the economy is able to win out over a health concern due to corporate power and influence on determining if health hazards truly are hazards. If preemptive measures were taken by government instead of risk management then instead of something not being bad until it’s proven to be bad then it wouldn’t be allowed to be in the market before it was proven to be safe. Also the film noted that industry is producing chemicals faster than we can establish the effects of them in order to properly regulate them. By the time we discover something is bad and attempt to ban it another product possibly equally as dangerous has already been introduced into our environment. Precautionary measures on new chemicals would slow down this process especially if every chemical had to be tested by a governmental body such as the EPA before use in any fashion.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I think the film could have focused more on solutions to some of the problems that were presented, especially related to options the individual might have to eliminate some of the impact that these chemicals are having on them. The film included a lot of facts that are likely to convince the viewer that this is a problem but leaves them without practical solutions.
Director: Carol Poliquin
Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses primarily on the rampant chemical use within the agricultural and industrial industries of the world. We are gradually contaminating the planet with unnatural substances and in doing so ourselves as well. No one knows when this action will reach a breaking point but some effects can already be noticed. It is quite difficult to remove these chemicals from the environment and our bodies and little preemptive action is currently considered.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
One of the sustainability problems presented in this film is related to the science of the effects of these chemicals due to its complexity and the need for time consuming accumulation studies. The effects of these chemicals can only be linked over a large population through visual trends. The first mutation of a cell eventually causing cancer can often occur 25 years beforehand. The science can also become an economic and political problem because of vested interests in those performing the science. For example in the documentary the industry of atrazine (a type of fertilizer) has such an effect on the economy and politics of the United States’ agricultural industry that it is unlikely to see regulations anytime soon despite numerous environmental implications it may have. Our society is not overly concerned with establishing the health effects of these chemicals. Funding that correlates to tests that don’t have economic potential is not of the highest concern for politicians or industrial corporations. There is an economic need within these industries to constantly maximize production. This would be severely limited by the need for precautionary actions or increased health regulations. 85,000 industrial substances are approved by the EPA for use in industry and only a couple hundred of them have had any form of health studies performed on them.
This lack of science leads to another organizational sustainability problem within the healthcare industry. Environmental factors are not typically considered as a factor in diagnosing chronic diseases due to the lack of knowledge and diagnosing tools for them. Most people can only suspect if a toxic substance they may have been exposed has caused an illness. If when people were diagnosed they knew it was caused by a certain chemical then they would most likely be more impassioned to prevent it from harming others. People also tend to have faith in the organization or culture in which they live. There is a strong faith in government regulation of the market.
One of the primary sustainability problems of the widespread use of these chemicals is ecological and human health concerns. PCB has shown to slow reaction times of nervous systems from sensory to response and mercury exposure can cause them to speed up often too fast to be properly processed. PPDE exposed rats tested at similar levels to what humans are generally exposed too showed hyperactivity with adverse effects to their adrenal and thyroid glands. BPA (biphenol-a) has been linked to cancer in rats at levels far lower than the EPA’s 50 ppb tolerance. Also a significant decrease in sperm count (motility and shape deformations) was shown to be correlated to the year in which you were born with more recently born people showing greater symptoms and a significant percentage of the toxins have been developed in more recent years. Everyone agrees that high exposure levels affect people but most don’t realize how even minimal contamination can still alter the way our genes behave, effecting precise protein production, effecting our endocrine and reproductive system and the delicate balance of “cell signaling” present within our bodies.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very compelled by the little amount of toxic chemicals that it took to cause some life threatening changes to our human bodies. The film mentioned that 1/1,000,000 or even as low as 1/1,000,000,000 of our body is composed of toxic chemicals but we are quickly realizing even this microscopic amount can affect us. Our body simply doesn’t know how to respond to the nature of these inorganic chemicals. Over 110 chemicals at various concentrations were found in the producer’s blood, all of which are not naturally occurring in our environments. The fact that we caused these chemicals to be contained within us is very persuasive to me. Numerous endocrine disruptors unnaturally placed into our environment were even thought to be causing shifts in birth ratios in industrialized nations. I was primarily compelled by the realization that our actions can often change more than we could ever expect.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not very compelled by the portion of the documentary about Hypospadias which is a penis malformation. This malformation occurs in people with normal hormones and normal genes but some x-factor possibly something like pesticides causes testosterone blocking causing the victim to develop a malformed penis beginning to take the shape of a women’s private parts. I found the images to be quite striking and disturbing but the causes were not directly linked to pesticides and I believe the cases of this were somewhat limited. It seemed like the producers desired to scare you into believing that your son’s penis will be malformed if you use pesticides but this still seemed highly unlikely.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Although I undoubtedly will not do so, this film compels me to figure out what concentrations of chemicals I could find within my own bloodstream. I would also be interested in knowing more about the hormone and antibiotic residues in meat as these things cause me to question my daily eating habits. Is there a proven health correlation between eating organic free range type beef without these hormones as compared to standard products? This is something I would be willing to change within my daily habits especially if it would reduce the amount of toxins and unnatural substances within my body.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think anyone of an age to understand the concepts presented within the film would be a good audience to address. The primary purpose of the film in my opinion was to show how these toxic chemicals are everywhere within our daily lives and even though the impact isn’t obvious hundreds of chemicals are circulating in every one of our blood streams. Although no concrete evidence was presented that shows these trace levels will give you cancer directly I feel like the film is thought provoking and will likely change the way people think about unnatural chemicals. I think this film would be especially beneficial though for uninformed industrial workers who might be exposing themselves to very dangerous levels of some of these chemicals without knowledge from their employers about the danger that they can cause.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
One point of intervention that was mentioned within the film is with our current policy in much of the world of risk management vs. precautionary action. We regulate our society giving weights to cost and economy as well as health. Often the economy is able to win out over a health concern due to corporate power and influence on determining if health hazards truly are hazards. If preemptive measures were taken by government instead of risk management then instead of something not being bad until it’s proven to be bad then it wouldn’t be allowed to be in the market before it was proven to be safe. Also the film noted that industry is producing chemicals faster than we can establish the effects of them in order to properly regulate them. By the time we discover something is bad and attempt to ban it another product possibly equally as dangerous has already been introduced into our environment. Precautionary measures on new chemicals would slow down this process especially if every chemical had to be tested by a governmental body such as the EPA before use in any fashion.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I think the film could have focused more on solutions to some of the problems that were presented, especially related to options the individual might have to eliminate some of the impact that these chemicals are having on them. The film included a lot of facts that are likely to convince the viewer that this is a problem but leaves them without practical solutions.